Post by nijhumnishita033 on Jan 11, 2024 3:47:51 GMT -5
Chamber II of the Supreme Court has upheld the appeal presented by the Prosecutor's Office against the order of the Criminal Chamber of the National Court, dated February 18, 2020, which agreed to the free dismissal due to prescription of a case pursued against the alleged ETA member. Natividad Jáuregui Espina for the crime of terrorist attack and attempted murder of three civil guards on June 14, 1981. The court considers that the statute of limitations cannot be appreciated, which is why it confirms the indictment against her issued by the Central Court of Instruction number 1 of the National Court on March 11, 2004 , and the procedure must continue through all its procedures.
The Supreme Court agrees with the Prosecutor's Office and points out that the limitation period was interrupted in October 1988 when Central Court 1 agreed to reopen the case after incorporating into it the Phone Number Data police statement given by a detainee in October 1987, in which acknowledged being a member of the terrorist group ETA and specifically having collaborated with Natividad Jáuregui Espina, among others, in the events investigated in the aforementioned case. Years ago given the outright and unjustified refusal shown by the son to do so. "The son avoided responding or responded with messages like: How should I tell youthat .
I don't want to know anything about you?" (Photo: Pixabay) Likewise, on a subsidiary basis, the parent requests that the ruling handed down in the first instance be revoked, for not applying the doctrine emanating from our High Court ( STS 104/2019, of February 19 ) in relation to the extinction of the obligation to provide alimony to adult children in cases of lack of relationship between the latter and their parent, when this is attributable to the child, or at least in a relevant way. The father remembers that his 21-year-old son has not spoken to him since he came of age and that he has not tried to contact him in recent years.
The Supreme Court agrees with the Prosecutor's Office and points out that the limitation period was interrupted in October 1988 when Central Court 1 agreed to reopen the case after incorporating into it the Phone Number Data police statement given by a detainee in October 1987, in which acknowledged being a member of the terrorist group ETA and specifically having collaborated with Natividad Jáuregui Espina, among others, in the events investigated in the aforementioned case. Years ago given the outright and unjustified refusal shown by the son to do so. "The son avoided responding or responded with messages like: How should I tell youthat .
I don't want to know anything about you?" (Photo: Pixabay) Likewise, on a subsidiary basis, the parent requests that the ruling handed down in the first instance be revoked, for not applying the doctrine emanating from our High Court ( STS 104/2019, of February 19 ) in relation to the extinction of the obligation to provide alimony to adult children in cases of lack of relationship between the latter and their parent, when this is attributable to the child, or at least in a relevant way. The father remembers that his 21-year-old son has not spoken to him since he came of age and that he has not tried to contact him in recent years.